Are revolutions and revolts harder in the modern time than they

>>2670721
Yeah. There is no way you can have a revolt in a first world country. It's still really hard in third world shitholes too.

Its complicated. I would say, in a nutshell, that it is definitely easier to organize movements thanks to social media and other technological developments. You can cause greater impact. Furthermore, we live in much greater comfort nowadays and so we can sustain longer protests and it helps quite a lot, at least in western countries, we have the right to do such.

However, ironically, precisely because the state doesnt directly fight movements, theres less chance of them becoming radicalized, unless, as we saw in Romania and Serbia, shits really bad. So theres a greater threshold movements have to surpass for them to become what we know from the 19th century, revolutions.

Another complicating factor is that just as technology helps movements, it helps govt too. They can much more quickly catch up and understand the situation to control it. Be it saying the right words on TV or radio, or (in cases where corruption has infected the market), monopolies on media and transports can effectively shut down any sort of public organization. Of course, those two last must be done subtly, and over the course of an extended period of time. If executed harshly, it will only feed the flames and further push the movement over the needed threshold for things to get violent.

I believe that I should mention again that my arguments have in mind the western world, which I believe is the region you are most probable living in.

File: logh_moretruth_therefrom.jpg (514KB, 952x3576px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 952x3576px

>>2670728
Perhaps one could itemize the reasons as to why this may be the case?

The extremely prolific military and police forces maybe a factor, but it seems to me that'd be a non-issue, and indeed, perhaps a boon, should one garner enough of them to one's cause.

Media control in first world nations, however, is fairly insidious, with its ability to break people into smaller and more divisive factions, none of which trust one another and each fearing the other taking power, and each accusing the other of backing, what are often in reality, mutual enemies.

At least in most developed nations that seems to be the state of things - the divide and conquer efforts by the leadership, but deliberate and incidental, has created too much fragmentation for any single revolutionary movement to have much in the way of cohesion.

No? I don't think so, now you have social media, new technology etc, thus allowing people to collate information and revolt against the system in different ways.

However, we don't really have the same type of despotic regimes as we used to, and people aren't fighting over religion in Europe like they used to, there's less feudalism and so on.

File: 2d8.jpg (36KB, 645x512px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 645x512px

>>2670721

Yes.

People only care about their bread and circuses.

They'll keep shoving their faces with big macs and game of thrones.

Its easier to fill the void of nihilism with endless consumption, than it is to address it head on by creating something of meaning.

>>2670721
Most revolutions aren't started by the people at large, but by the aristocrats, fueling the anger of said people.

There are exceptions, but the American Revolution, for instance, was not one of them, nor was Mao's "people's" revolution.

In most developed nations, these days, the aristocrats are fairly happy with the way things are. Thus, provided the populous at large isn't outright starving, there's no one with both ambition and power interested in starting a real revolution.